Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool searches published guides and 'Returns matching articles with summaries and links to full Markdown,' which informs the agent of the output shape and non-mutating nature. It does not mention ranking, freshness, or coverage limitations, but for a search tool the disclosed behavior is reasonably transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences with no filler: it states the search scope, return format, and primary use case efficiently. The topic list is long but directly useful for an agent deciding whether to invoke this tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a stateless search tool with three well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers what is searched, what is returned, and when to use it. It lacks only minor details such as result ordering or coverage guarantees, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the parameters. The description adds domain-level context by listing the kinds of topics to search for, but it does not add meaningful per-parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Search' and the resource 'Bramvia's published guides', and it enumerates the topical scope (Business Central, ERP migrations, compliance, localization, US/Canada topics). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as get_bramvia_article or check_compliance_deadlines, but the search-and-return-articles framing is distinct enough.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit usage context: 'Use this for factual questions about Business Central, ERP migration cost and method, or compliance deadlines.' This tells the agent when to select this tool, but it does not state when not to use it or name specific alternatives for overlapping sibling tools like estimate_migration or check_compliance_deadlines.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.